No Common Intention, No Murder: Tripura HC Acquits Two Convicts in UCO Bank Manager Stabbing Case
The Tripura High Court set aside life imprisonment convictions of two accused, holding that informing a third party about an assault does not establish common intention to commit murder under Section 34 IPC.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura, comprising Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, on 26 May 2026 acquitted two men who had been serving life imprisonment for the murder of a UCO Bank branch manager. The court held that the two appellants — Sumit Chowdhury @ Babai and Sumit Banik @ Bapi — could not be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code because the prosecution failed to establish any pre-meditated common intention to kill. The fatal stab wounds were inflicted solely by a third co-accused, Omar Sharif @ Sueb, whose conviction had already been confirmed by the same court in July 2025. The bench found that merely alerting Omar Sharif about an ongoing scuffle did not amount to instigation for murder, and ordered the immediate release of both appellants after over six years in custody.
The Incident at Jackson Gate and the Trial Court's Verdict
On the intervening night of 3 and 4 August 2019, Bodhisattwa Das, Branch Manager of UCO Bank's Dharmanagar branch, was near Jackson Gate, Agartala, in front of Sarada Medical Hall. He and a friend, PW-2, were sitting outside when a white vehicle arrived. Sukanta Biswas, a traffic inspector, stepped out and began urinating in front of an adjacent shop. An altercation broke out between Biswas and the deceased. Sumit Chowdhury and Sumit Banik, who had arrived in the same vehicle, also came down and joined the assault on the deceased.
Shortly after, Omar Sharif @ Sueb arrived on a scooter. According to PW-2, the sole eyewitness, Sumit Chowdhury and Sumit Banik told Omar Sharif that the deceased had assaulted their “Sir” — referring to Sukanta Biswas. Omar Sharif then produced a large knife and inflicted multiple stab wounds on the deceased. The deceased was admitted to GBP Hospital, Agartala, and later shifted to Kolkata for treatment. He died on 16 August 2019 from his injuries, with septicaemia also noted as a contributing cause.
West Agartala Police Station Case No. 172 of 2019 was registered on 4 August 2019 under Sections 307, 326, and 34 IPC. After the victim's death, Section 302 IPC was added. A charge sheet was filed against four accused: Sumit Chowdhury @ Babai, Omar Sharif @ Sueb, Sumit Banik @ Bapi, and Sukanta Biswas. The trial court, in Sessions Case No. ST.(T-1) 103 of 2019, examined 56 prosecution witnesses and marked 27 exhibits. By judgment dated 2 June 2023 and sentence order dated 3 June 2023, all four accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000 each, with a default sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment. The trial court also directed set-off of pre-conviction detention under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Omar Sharif challenged his conviction in Criminal Appeal (Jail) No. 57 of 2023. The High Court dismissed that appeal on 1 July 2025, affirming his life sentence. Sumit Chowdhury and Sumit Banik then filed the present appeals — Crl. A.(J) No. 10 of 2026 and Crl. A.(J) No. 18 of 2026 respectively — which were heard together on 19 and 20 May 2026.
Arguments Before the Division Bench
Senior Advocate Mr. Milon Mukherjee, appearing for Sumit Chowdhury, attacked the reliability of the FIR and the eyewitness account. He pointed out that the fireman who first reached the spot was never examined, and the caller who allegedly informed the fire service was never traced. He argued that PW-2, despite being a childhood friend of the deceased, neither helped the victim nor informed authorities immediately, which cast doubt on his credibility. Critically, he submitted that PW-2's own deposition confined the role of the two appellants to “fist and blows,” while the medical evidence confirmed death was caused solely by sharp cutting injuries inflicted by Omar Sharif. Section 302 IPC, he argued, could not be sustained against the appellants on this basis.
Senior Advocate Mr. B.N. Majumder, also appearing for Sumit Chowdhury, challenged the admissibility of the co-accused's confession. He submitted that the confession was recorded by an Executive Magistrate, not a Judicial Magistrate, in violation of Section 164 of the CrPC and Section 26 of the Evidence Act. He further argued that no blood stains were found on the seized beer bottles during SFSL examination, undermining the prosecution's narrative about the weapon used. He also contested the dying declaration, arguing that the victim was “disoriented” with a blood pressure of 60/40 and was not in a fit mental state to make a credible statement. He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1998 CRI.L.J. 4590) to argue that merely urging someone to “strike” without knowledge of a lethal weapon does not attract Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Senior Advocate Mr. Subrata Sarkar, appearing for Sumit Banik, emphasised that his client's name was entirely absent from the FIR. He argued this showed the complainant herself had no knowledge of Sumit Banik's involvement at the time of lodging the complaint, and that he was roped in at a belated stage. He submitted there was no premeditation: the appellants had arrived at the spot in a vehicle, an unexpected altercation broke out, and Omar Sharif arrived independently on his scooter. There were no call records or other evidence showing the appellants had summoned Omar Sharif. Since the appellants could not have known Omar Sharif was carrying a knife, Section 34 IPC could not be applied. He relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Chhota Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 4 SCC 126 on the requirement of a pre-arranged common intention, and on the Privy Council's judgment in Mahbub Shah v. King-Emperor on the essence of joint liability under Section 34.
The Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. Datta, relied on the High Court's earlier finding in Omar Sharif's appeal that the appellants had instigated the fatal assault by complaining to Omar Sharif about the deceased. He argued that street lighting was functional at the time, citing PW-27, an Executive Engineer of the Agartala Municipal Corporation, to counter the defence's visibility argument. He submitted that the FIR's reference to “others” alongside named accused legally justified the subsequent addition of Sumit Banik's name in the charge sheet. He argued that common intention was established through the joint attack and relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Firoz Khan Akbarkan v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC Online SC 627) on minor discrepancies in investigation not being fatal to the prosecution's case.
How the Bench Reasoned on Section 34 IPC
The bench accepted the prosecution's case insofar as it concerned Omar Sharif. The seized knife, forensic examination results, and the injury reports confirmed by PWs-11 and 32 established that the deceased died from stab wounds inflicted by Omar Sharif. That conviction had already been affirmed.
The central question was whether the two appellants shared a common intention with Omar Sharif to commit murder. The bench examined PW-2's deposition carefully. PW-2 stated that when Omar Sharif arrived on his scooter, Sumit Chowdhury and Sumit Banik told him that the deceased had assaulted their friend Sukanta Biswas. Omar Sharif then immediately produced a knife and stabbed the victim.
The bench found this sequence fatal to the prosecution's case on common intention. There was no evidence — from any prosecution witness or exhibit — of a pre-arranged plan to kill the deceased. Omar Sharif arrived at the spot independently, passing by on his two-wheeler. The appellants had no way of knowing he was carrying a knife. The act of informing Omar Sharif about the altercation, the bench held, did not constitute instigation for murder.
On the beer bottles, the bench noted that forensic examination found no blood stains and no fingerprints of the appellants on the seized bottles. The cause of death was the knife wounds, not any injury from bottles. This further severed any link between the appellants and the fatal act.
On the confession recorded by the Executive Magistrate, the bench agreed with the defence. It held that under Section 164 CrPC, “Magistrate” means a Judicial Magistrate, not an Executive Magistrate. A confession recorded by an Executive Magistrate is hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used against the accused unless made in the immediate presence of a Judicial Magistrate. That condition was not met here.
The bench drew on the reasoning in Ajay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court had held that an accused who merely said “strike” without knowing the co-accused carried a weapon could not be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The parallel with the present facts was direct: the appellants complained to Omar Sharif about the assault on their friend, without any evidence they knew he was armed or intended to kill.
The bench also applied the principles from Chhota Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which requires that common intention be established from proved facts and circumstances, and that the intention of each accused must be known to the rest. Neither condition was satisfied here. The intervention by Omar Sharif bore the hallmarks of a chance arrival, not a pre-arranged convergence.
On the minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence, the bench found the judgments cited by the Public Prosecutor inapplicable on the facts. The issue was not minor inconsistencies in witness testimony but the absence of any evidence of pre-meditation or shared intent to kill.
The Bench's Finding on Sentence Already Served
The bench observed that the appellants had been in custody for over six years. It noted that while there was evidence of physical assault by the appellants, no charge under Section 323 IPC (simple hurt) had been framed against them at trial. The maximum punishment for simple hurt under Section 323 IPC is one month's imprisonment. The period already served far exceeded any sentence that could have been imposed for the conduct actually attributable to the appellants.
Order
The Division Bench allowed both appeals. The judgments and orders of conviction dated 2 June 2023 and the sentence orders dated 3 June 2023 passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No. ST.(T-1) 103 of 2019 against Sumit Chowdhury @ Babai and Sumit Banik @ Bapi were set aside. The bench directed that both appellants be released immediately if not required in any other case. Any stay in operation was vacated and pending applications were closed.